Systemic‐dialogical therapy originates from an evolution of Milan systemic therapy, through a reflection on Bakhtinian dialogue and on power and knowledge dynamics in therapeutic sessions. The model considers both emergent patterns in human interaction and the dialogical nature of human exchanges in which emotions play a relevant part. Such theoretical considerations prompted the creation of specific practices, such as emotional micro‐hypothesising, considering heteroglossia in the session, dialogue with the context, finding one's place in the relational network, and fostering relational responsibility in both therapist and clients. The practice of systemic‐dialogical therapy is illustrated by a clinical case study.
Several psychotherapy and family therapy models emphasise work on emotions, both as emotional awareness and transference analysis. Systemic therapy has developed in time a peculiar emphasis on the therapist's position, and on therapists’ and clients’ reciprocal positioning. In the present article we propose to integrate the dimensions of emotions and positioning through a concept we define as ‘finding one's place’. Finding one's place can be considered as a universal positioning activity of anybody involved in any human interaction, involving different domains: macro‐context, group, mutual relationships, internal dialogue. It entails an integration of these domains through an increased awareness of one's position inside relevant systems, and emotional interaction.
Practitioner points
Clinicians usually consider positioning and emotions as separate domains for evaluation and intervention
The integration of the two domains allows a deeper, three‐dimensional view of therapeutic events inside and outside therapeutic sessions
Through the activity of finding her place, the therapist may reach a better understanding of dilemmas and problems in her clients’ relational lives
The therapist may also gain a better orientation for her clinical work
Bakhtin-inspired ideas that led to the emergence of dialogic therapies are usually considered as incompatible with other, more traditional models. This article presents a possible integration of dialogical ideas, with their acceptance of uncertainty and disorder, within a systemic understanding, where the emergence of systemic patterns is recognised. Through a comparison with the open dialogue approach, the article aims at clarifying the difference between a pure dialogical and a systemic-dialogical perspective, that is seen as more fitting with the contextual complexity of the world of today. The model of practice is illustrated by a case supervision example.
Responsibility is a dimension often overlooked in systemic and family therapy, possibly because of its connection with blame, especially toward victims of violence or abuse. Systemic‐dialogical therapy, however, gives relevance to responsibility, in the form of positional responsibility; that is, the responsibility one may take regarding one’s position in the relevant systems and contexts one is embedded in, and the ability to find one’s place within them. To help clients in such efforts, therapists must, in turn, take responsibility for the development of the therapeutic process. The process of taking responsibility in therapy, therefore, is twofold: it concerns clients, of course, but it also involves the therapist. This article proposes a method for working on positional responsibility in clinical work, illustrating it with clinical examples.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.